Membership Information: The Judge ordered that, with respect to UKnight request for membership information, KC and KC councils are to provide UKnight with the requested membership information stating that, "In sum, I find no merit in the hodge-podge of arguments the Knights of Columbus have put forth in what appears to be an almost desperate attempt to preclude any discovery concerning membership information."

Tax-Exempt Status: The Judge found that UKnight does not have standing to bring its IRS claim. In plain English, the Judge decided that this matter is between the IRS and KC, and regardless of the facts of the matter, whether the IRS wants to give KC tax-exempt status or not is none of UKnight’s business.

RICO: The Judge found that regardless of the facts in UKnight’s claim, there are only specific, limited conditions under which a plaintiff can sue under the RICO statutes, and he believes that UKnight did not meet all of those specific conditions.

Trademark Infringement: The Judge found that KC's trademark claims against UKnight were sufficiently credible to let the jury hear both sides and make the decision. UKnight disagrees that it is infringing on any of KC’s trademarks, but decided to comply with KC’s demands anyway and has deleted all of the domains and other elements of its various websites KC characterized as infringing except for one, kofcknights.org.

UKnight is in the process of deleting this domain, as UKnight subscribers are learning. UKnight has been building upon kofcknights.org since 2009, and the Knights of Columbus has even worked together with UKnight to expand UKnight’s platform on kofcknights.org. So every UKnight subscriber, every Knights of Columbus council, agent, agency, assembly, chapter/diocese, state, and district deputy who uses UKnight, has their site built on the domain kofcknights.org. Therefore, this is going to be a complicated process for UKnight and its subscribers alike. Regardless, as of this date KC still demands it, so UKnight is continuing through the processes necessary to comply.

Surreptitiously Recording Conversations: Recording conversations with only one parties knowledge is legal according to Colorado law, legal according to Texas law, legal according to Federal law, but illegal according to Connecticut law. UKnight has recorded conversations between UKnight managers in Colorado and Texas, and KC executives in Connecticut. KC does not want these conversations to be used as evidence and claims they were recorded illegally. The Judge ruled that this is for the Jury to decide.

Breach of Contract: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

Promissory Estoppel: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

Intentional Interference with Prospective Business Relations: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

Fraudulent Misrepresentation: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

Negligent Misrepresentation: The Judge ruled this is for the jury to decide.

When addressing concerns of KofC retaliation against agents/deputies/members for cooperation with Plaintiff the Judge said:

“But it should be absolutely clear… and trust me when I tell you I mean this, may not be retaliated against. They can't be terminated, fired, or sanctioned in any way because of their cooperation with the plaintiff, and I suggest that if somebody comes up with an alternate reason for terminating some of these people, it better be very darn good, or I will assume and conclude that it is pretextual, and you will not be happy campers. I want these people to be freely able to say what they have to say without being sanctioned by the company for what they have said.”

In this Order, the Judge agrees with the IRS on UKnight's standing, does not agree that UKnight sufficiently supported its RICO claim, allows KC's trademark claims to move forward, and with regard to the membership information, the Judge ordered that KC and KC councils provide UKnight with the requested membership information stating that, "In sum, I find no merit in the hodge-podge of arguments the Knights of Columbus have put forth in what appears to be an almost desperate attempt to preclude any discovery concerning membership information."

In this motion from the IRS, they do not make any decision on the claims that UKnight was making in challenging KC's tax exempt status, just that UKnight Interactive does not have the standing necessary to challenge KC's tax-exempt status.

2017 09 25 - Emergency TRO Witness Tampering Sanctions
UKnight: The information that UKnight received from Councils prior to the misleading email sent by KC Inc. validates UKnight's claims, and the Court should, among other things, order KC Inc. to issue an immediate retraction email to all recipients of its September 22, 2017 email because UKnight's request for information was legitimate.

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - bottom of page 11, "MR. VAIL (UKnight's attorney): We have numerous contacts with the individual local councils. We would contact them and ask for -- they have what's called membership secretaries in each local council, and ask them for their internal records, are these the people you have as members, and have they, in fact, paid dues to you."

CLICK HERE to see the transcript from #18 - middle of page 15, "The Court's order is that the defendant produce to the plaintiff what he calls membership information."

2017 09 25 - Defendant's Motion for Protective Order
KC Inc.: The Court should order UKnight to cease receiving membership information or data provided as a result of the Mass Email, be ordered to disclose all information and data obtained in connection with the Mass Email, to destroy all copies of any information they received, and certify to KC Inc. and the Court that they have done so.

When addressing concerns of retaliation against KofC agents/deputies/members for cooperation with Plaintiff the Judge said:

“But it should be absolutely clear… and trust me when I tell you I mean this, may not be retaliated against. They can't be terminated, fired, or sanctioned in any way because of their cooperation with the plaintiff, and I suggest that if somebody comes up with an alternate reason for terminating some of these people, it better be very darn good, or I will assume and conclude that it is pretextual, and you will not be happy campers. I want these people to be freely able to say what they have to say without being sanctioned by the company for what they have said.”

2017 02 14 Motion for Forthwith Consideration: It was important to let Knights of Columbus members know as soon as possible that there would be no negative consequences if they spoke to UKnight. So UKnight filed this Motion for Forthwith Consideration to let the Court know that time was of the essence.

2.

2017 02 14 Emergency Motion for a Protective Order: When the Knights of Columbus heard that UKnight had so much support among the Councils and Agents, they sent out a mass email in an effort to keep any of their members from talking to UKnight. UKnight thought this was improper, and filed this request for a Protective Order with the Court.

2017 02 10 First Amended Complaint: The initial lawsuit was filed on January 24, 2017. There were a few new bits of information that came up that UKnight thought were important to add, so they quickly amended that first complaint. That is why this is called the "First Amended Complaint".